378 replies to this topic

[Alienfreak]

von Pilsner, on 15 April 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

I think many are against cone of fire and crosshair sizing because of it's association with modern FPS games.

What? EVERYTHING HAS A CONE OF FIRE.

Play DCS Warthog. DCS Werewolf. Destroyer Command.
Who cares which game. Everything that even tries to have simulation and skill in a game has it.

Those afraid to lose their arcade game do use the "THIS IS COD" type of argument because they think they are much cooler and better than those people playing COD. And yet COD is also an arcade shooter. Arcade gamers using an arcade game as an argument against having good changes that would make it less arcady.

Edited by Alienfreak, 15 April 2013 - 01:25 PM.

[cyberFluke]

3rdworld, on 15 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Assume both are headshots. Explain how the one on the right takes more "skill" than the one on the left.

Assuming the pic on the left is a stationary mech firing at the atlas with no heat, and the pic in the right running at full speed with high heat, having already taken shots at the atlas.

The one on the left took some more skill than just pointing and clicking. It would require the forethought to already be in the right position to have slowed down/stopped for a second to take the shot at the cockpit.

Thus adding actual thought to the twitch reflex that is aiming.

Thank you *very* much for the picture, it illustrates my point *perfectly*.

EDIT: fixed crappy comprehension of mine.

Edited by cyberFluke, 15 April 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[3rdworld]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

The one on the left took some more skill than just pointing and clicking. It would require the forethought to already be in the right position to have slowed down/stopped for a second to take the shot at the cockpit.

Thus adding actual thought to the twitch reflex that is aiming.

Thank you *very* much for the picture, it illustrates my point *perfectly*.

How does slowing down increase the difficulty?

Besides that the left represents what we have now, right is what you want.

I also like the part where you assume because you can aim accurately positioning is of no consequence.

I think you are just a very subtle troll.

Edited by 3rdworld, 15 April 2013 - 01:31 PM.

[Nightcrept]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Assuming the pic on the left is a stationary mech firing at the atlas with no heat, and the pic in the right running at full speed with high heat, having already taken shots at the atlas.

The one on the left took some more skill than just pointing and clicking. It would require the forethought to already be in the right position to have slowed down/stopped for a second to take the shot at the cockpit.

Thus adding actual thought to the twitch reflex that is aiming.

Thank you *very* much for the picture, it illustrates my point *perfectly*.

EDIT: fixed crappy comprehension of mine.

I honestly don't get how that adds anything. You have to stop to shoot accurately?
How does that add skill?

[Lostdragon]

3rdworld, on 15 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Assume both are headshots. Explain how the one on the right takes more "skill" than the one on the left.

If you had expanding crosshairs that don't expand when you are standing still then the logical conclusion is that if you want to go for the head shot then you need to stop moving. Knowing when to move and when not to move is the part that actually adds more skill requirement to the game and forces you to decide "Is standing still worth trying to get a headshot, or would it be be better to not be a sitting duck and go for his CT?"

The "randomness" that some folks are so up in arms about is not really random when you have the ability to eliminate it by simply not moving. You have to make a decision as to which is the most effective tactic in your current situation.

[cyberFluke]

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

I honestly don't get how that adds anything. You have to stop to shoot accurately?
How does that add skill?

Timing, situational awareness, positioning become far more important than they are now. At the minute they're pretty much secondary to having more, bigger guns. It's only going to get worse when ballistics hit state rewind gets implemented, since PPCs use the ballistics code, they will become even more viable as boating weapons.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Standing still to have good aim...that makes sense...for making you a stationary target

[Roland]

Honestly, in the current incarnation of the game, you essentially need to stop moving anyway if you want to make a really hard shot like that consistently.

This is due to the fact that the netcode is still fairly wonky, and there will be a random delay between the time you pull the trigger and the time the shot fires.

So I guess... OMG DICE ROLLING IS IN THE GAME RIGHT NOW!

[Nightcrept]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Timing, situational awareness, positioning become far more important than they are now. At the minute they're pretty much secondary to having more, bigger guns. It's only going to get worse when ballistics hit state rewind gets implemented, since PPCs use the ballistics code, they will become even more viable as boating weapons.

I don't foresee that being a very popular idea. Mainly because there aren't many players good enough to hit a mech standing still now. Making it harder to hit a target when moving is only going to really hurt the poor players and snipers. The brawlers will love it since it won't really bother them if they even have a cross hair or not much less an expanded version.

You can fix boating by fixing the stalkers ability to boat.
You can fix the dominance of ppcs by fixing missiles.

Radical reticule redesign isn't really right. (<---------The idea of everyone saying that made me post it.).

[Vapor Trail]

Lostdragon, on 15 April 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

People saying this don't understand how it impacts the balance of the game.

Oh? Lets see.
Variable precision on direct fire weaponry means either:
1. More shots needed to take down the average mech because more shots will be spread over the mech (with some even, gasp, missing entirely) because of the inherent inaccuracy.

or...

2. More time needed to take down the average mech because the pilot is spacing shots to gain the highest accuracy for each.

In short, the game will more closely resemble the boardgame.

I think I've got a decent handle on how it would affect the game. What's your version?

FrostCollar, on 15 April 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Because it's deviating from the rules? Sports rules aren't about making the best game, they're about making sure everyone's playing the same game. It's the same reason Olympic swimmers are required to use similar suits instead of the best suits.

That's about the only counterpoint that makes sense.

Now follow the logic: why does this rule (having a random spread) exist in the game? It's to prevent the single-shot headshot from being the way people go down. The headshot is supposed to be a low percentage shot. Any competitive shooter (and we're talking real world shooting here) will tell you that aiming center of mass on a humanoid target is the better target.

Now do people still go for headshots? Yeah... But often the shots are aimed for the "Sniper's Triangle" area, which is the area between the inside of both shoulders and the middle of the sternum. Real-world, this area is high in vital structures (spine, lungs, many large arteries and veins, top of heart) and offers a high chance of single round disablement. Game-world this area is the highest average "point value" for a hit, as well as a miss. A miss high-center from this area results in a headshot. A miss right, center-low, or left results in a chest or abdomen shot, so even if you miss the intended target with every round, you still have a good chance of taking down the target.

Choosing your aimpoint on a presented target to get the BEST result out your aim based on the possible spread is a skill, just as being able to hit that aimpoint is. It's just not the same skill. Being better at both of those skills is what helps distinguish an excellent player from the merely good.

There is a 'headshots only' setting. If "skill" were only "who can get the most headshots," then the E-sports groups would probably use it. They don't, to my knowledge.

Adding a variable shot spread would introduce at least one different skill set into aiming, possibly two, maybe more.
- First you would have judging weather the crosshair is tight enough to place the shot(s) where you want it/them.
- Second you would have shot pacing. Keeping the crosshair as small as possible so as to keep best accuracy for all shots.

It would also affect builds, in that longer range weapons are (by necessity) going to be more inherently accurate than medium range weapons. Means the lighter ACs are going to be more accurate than the heavier ones... and that the heavier energy weapons are going to be more accurate than the lighter ones. And missiles are going to be missiles.

[Alois Hammer]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

I know man, but some people in here are seemingly trying to prove their short sighted foolishness... What can I do?

Ceasing and desisting in your attempts to prove your short-sighted foolishness might not be a bad starting point.

Trying some tack besides deriding anyone who disagrees would undoubtedly be a good step as well.


But since both those are out of the picture...basically your only remaining option is to announce what a pain it is being the only intelligent person on the planet then stomp away in a huff.

-shrug-

[cyberFluke]

Vapor Trail, on 15 April 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Oh? Lets see.
Variable precision on direct fire weaponry means either:
1. More shots needed to take down the average mech because more shots will be spread over the mech (with some even, gasp, missing entirely) because of the inherent inaccuracy.

or...

2. More time needed to take down the average mech because the pilot is spacing shots to gain the highest accuracy for each.

In short, the game will more closely resemble the boardgame.

I think I've got a decent handle on how it would affect the game. What's your version?



That's about the only counterpoint that makes sense.

Now follow the logic: why does this rule (having a random spread) exist in the game? It's to prevent the single-shot headshot from being the way people go down. The headshot is supposed to be a low percentage shot. Any competitive shooter (and we're talking real world shooting here) will tell you that aiming center of mass on a humanoid target is the better target.

Now do people still go for headshots? Yeah... But often the shots are aimed for the "Sniper's Triangle" area, which is the area between the inside of both shoulders and the middle of the sternum. Real-world, this area is high in vital structures (spine, lungs, many large arteries and veins, top of heart) and offers a high chance of single round disablement. Game-world this area is the highest average "point value" for a hit, as well as a miss. A miss high-center from this area results in a headshot. A miss right, center-low, or left results in a chest or abdomen shot, so even if you miss the intended target with every round, you still have a good chance of taking down the target.

Choosing your aimpoint on a presented target to get the BEST result out your aim based on the possible spread is a skill, just as being able to hit that aimpoint is. It's just not the same skill. Being better at both of those skills is what helps distinguish an excellent player from the merely good.

There is a 'headshots only' setting. If "skill" were only "who can get the most headshots," then the E-sports groups would probably use it. They don't, to my knowledge.

Adding a variable shot spread would introduce at least one different skill set into aiming, possibly two, maybe more.
- First you would have judging weather the crosshair is tight enough to place the shot(s) where you want it/them.
- Second you would have shot pacing. Keeping the crosshair as small as possible so as to keep best accuracy for all shots.

It would also affect builds, in that longer range weapons are (by necessity) going to be more inherently accurate than medium range weapons. Means the lighter ACs are going to be more accurate than the heavier ones... and that the heavier energy weapons are going to be more accurate than the lighter ones. And missiles are going to be missiles.

Firstly, this. /\

I thank you Vapor Trail for explaining what I cannot. I know I lack the ability to put into words what I know innately, you have done that for me.

I am greatly heartened by some people showing understanding and a level of intelligence well past the majority of the pond scum that dwell in this place. I only hope that PGI is as intelligent.

Secondly...

Alois Hammer, on 15 April 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Ceasing and desisting in your attempts to prove your short-sighted foolishness might not be a bad starting point.

Trying some tack besides deriding anyone who disagrees would undoubtedly be a good step as well.


But since both those are out of the picture...basically your only remaining option is to announce what a pain it is being the only intelligent person on the planet then stomp away in a huff.

-shrug-

That is difficult when the method, language and intelligence demonstrated by the vast majority of those that disagree is of a schoolyard level. If this were a real life meeting, people wouldn't act like they do in here. Gabe's Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory is in full swing. I do not wish it to be so, but the detractors use it as their first weapon against an idea they see as a threat to their own perceived superiority.

Edited by cyberFluke, 15 April 2013 - 02:32 PM.

[Nightcrept]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Firstly, this. /\

I thank you Vapor Trail for explaining what I cannot. I know I lack the ability to put into words what I know innately, you have done that for me.

I am greatly heartened by some people showing understanding and a level of intelligence well past the majority of the pond scum that dwell in this place. I only hope that PGI is as intelligent.

Secondly...



That is difficult when the method, language and intelligence demonstrated by the vast majority of those that disagree is of a schoolyard level. If this were a real life meeting, people wouldn't act like they do in here. Gabe's Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory is in full swing. I do not wish it to be so, but the detractors use it as their first weapon against an idea they see as a threat to their own perceived superiority.

Then open a poll in the suggestion or balance areas.
But most players are not going to dig this.

[Lostdragon]

Vapor Trail, on 15 April 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Oh? Lets see.
Variable precision on direct fire weaponry means either:
1. More shots needed to take down the average mech because more shots will be spread over the mech (with some even, gasp, missing entirely) because of the inherent inaccuracy.

or...

2. More time needed to take down the average mech because the pilot is spacing shots to gain the highest accuracy for each.

In short, the game will more closely resemble the boardgame.

I think I've got a decent handle on how it would affect the game. What's your version?

You are correct, but you are missing a key piece, the real balance piece. Forcing snipers to slow down and aim their shots gives brawlers and medium rangers more of a chance to get in close and use shorter range weaponry. A lot of short range weaponry like SRMs and the LBX have a weapon spread anyway so having a moving accuracy penalty is not going to hurt them much, but will make these weapons a much better potential sniper counter than they currently are. Brawlers are in a bad state partially because it is very easy to pick them off from 3-4 times the effective range of their main weapons.

With this sort of change a brawler trying to close on a sniper would have a better chance to make it from cover to cover without getting blasted to pieces before he can bring his weapons to bear.

Right now long range builds dominate the game because of 1.) the missile nerf and 2.) the sheer power and ease of using long range weaponry. I firmly believe that if implemented correctly this sort of change would result in much more varied loadouts by taking away a bit of the advantage the extremely powerful long range weaponry has at the moment. Many games use the movement accuracy penalty model because it is an effective way to balance weapons.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do feel the game is in need of some changes in order to create better weapon balance and I think PGI probably knows that too. I feel like in the next few patches we are going to see some changes toward that end, I just hope they are good changes that don't have unintended negative effects.

[cyberFluke]

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Then open a poll in the suggestion or balance areas.
But most players are not going to dig this.

Could I get an honest answer as to why not?

Would I be correct in the assumption that it is because most people are afraid of a challenge and want an easy, simplistic shooter with stompy robot pictures on it where they can pew pew and feel superior, while not actually performing a task a mildly trained monkey couldn't do for food?

I weep for the state of games (and indeed gamers) today. Games are supposed to be challenging tests of intelligence, strength and strategy, not a hand-holding, back patting, self congratulatory circle jerk to make you feel better about your crappy existence.

[Vassago Rain]

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

I honestly don't get how that adds anything. You have to stop to shoot accurately?
How does that add skill?

I told you about the scrubs, bro.
I warned you, bro.

[cyberFluke]

Vassago Rain, on 15 April 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

I told you about the scrubs, bro.
I warned you, bro.

Either add something constructive or go fall off a cliff.

Some people should have their oxygen and procreation privileges revoked.

[Vassago Rain]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Either add something constructive or go fall off a cliff.

Some people should have their oxygen and procreation privileges revoked.

You'll be moved to the suggestion forum soon. Enjoy.

[cyberFluke]

Vassago Rain, on 15 April 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

You'll be moved to the suggestion forum soon. Enjoy.

Where, after the discussion and *constructive* ideas have all been posted, a PGI staff member may point it out to someone that matters. That person may think, "Hey, this isn't half bad, let's get our heads together and have a play with this idea."

If so, my work here is done. If not, then I'll pursue other avenues to get the idea thought about.

[Vassago Rain]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Where, after the discussion and *constructive* ideas have all been posted, a PGI staff member may point it out to someone that matters. That person may think, "Hey, this isn't half bad, let's get our heads together and have a play with this idea."

If so, my work here is done. If not, then I'll pursue other avenues to get the idea thought about.

Yes, exactly. I thought your idea was so good, you deserve a better audience. One with the ability to harness all the power and good ideas in this thread.